After combing through literally dozens of mock drafts and articles, these are the names mentioned as being the most likely #1 overall pick.

I'll admit I've wavered a bit, but I'm not sold on either of the two QBs, though I wouldn't be disappointed if that's the direction the Lions went.

In my perfect world, a rookie QB, especially one who skips his senior season, sits for at least two years (albeit while collecting a huge chunka' change!) before being thrown to the wolves in a game played much faster with players much bigger and more talented than ever seen in college. That's why I'm not down on the Lions drafting a QB #1 overall if Culpepper and/or another veteran can hold down the fort...and if the rookie's got the goods, which apparently Stafford does.

In my opinion, the Packers did it right with Aaron Rodgers; and despite his notorious end zone faux pas, I was ready to embrace Orlovsky as the Lions' QB. I remember a time when a QB wasn't considered ready to start till he spent at least five years in the league! Of course, the Packers had Favre and the Lions don't.

Terms like "franchise quarterback" and "face of the franchise" mean nothing to me; they sound like marketing terms. I'd rather see a "face of the franchise" pockmarked with W's and good, consistent team execution instead of with "stars" manufactured by the league.

Of course, the Lions don't exist in my perfect world...yet.

If I'm the Lions brass, I like top-loading the draft on the defensive side of the ball, therefore it's LB Aaron Curry at #1a. Though he's often cited as the "safest" pick in the draft, the biggest argument I've heard against him being picked #1 overall is: "You just don't pick a linebacker #1 overall." Another argument goes that "pure MLBs" Jim Laurinaitis or Rey Maualuga might be available in later picks, but the "franchise QB" or "the big LT for ten years" won't be.

I say stack the D...start by picking Curry #1 overall.

The poll is for three days ending Friday afternoon. I've seen the other poll in this section - the operative word in this poll is "should" as opposed to "will".

I have nothing against any of the top rated guys up front. Any and all will be great talents for their teams. But talent can only get you so far. Dedication, personal responsibility, the right system, and a little luck all goes into make it eventually to superstar status.

Yes, we need a future QB (or even a present one, until Daunte proves to me he can play better than Orlovsky). But let's not kid ourselves, the Lions need future EVERYTHINGS. Except for Calvin Johnson at wide reciever, the Lions could draft any position as the top pick, and you could say, "Yeah, that position needed help. Hopefully, that will be an answer for the next 10 years."

I am not a superstar fan. I am a Detroit Lions fan. And last year sucked. We had a defensive guru head coach who led the team to 0-16 and statistically the 2nd worst defense of all time. We now have a new Coach who also has a defensive background. A new perspective. A couple of new players. Anybody who believes the defense is fixed now, step forward.

Let's draft Curry and keep drafting defense until the turn the lights off in New York. Let's be able to keep the games close enough that our offense has a chance to win some games first. We can't draft for every position first, but let's try to get the best 11 guys we can find and put them in a place to succeed.

As stated earlier, QB is the face of the franchise, LT's are better than RT's, etc. These are out moded ways of thinking. Now a days, good teams exploit any and all weaknesses any team has. A LB corp of Sims, Curry, and Peterson could be a top ten group. And maybe 3-4 years from now, we move Curry outside to replace Peterson and bring in another LB. But for right now, lets draft the best player in the draft. Let's draft someone to help us NOT be down by 21 pts midway through the 2nd quarter. Let's draft a stud player who decided to share his moment of glory at the NFL draft by inviting a small child who has Leukemia to join him that weekend.

You want a team leader and a man of character, I give you Arron Curry.

April 21st, 2009, 10:55 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9967Location: Dallas

I like Curry and would be very happy with that pick. I do, however, think you can get a very good LB with a later pick.

LT is a similar story. In fact, the top 4 are all very good and the drop off isn't dramatic after that.

I don't think that about the QB position, If you don't take one with the first pick you get a project at best. It is also the position you have to wait on most for the player to mature into the NFL the most, I'm tired of waiting - lets get that player on the roster and then build around him as he gets ready.

I might also catch flack here, but I'm not opposed to fixing the one side of the ball that we are not that far away from and that is the offense. I don't want to see CJ wasted. We have a RT hopefully. Get an LT, move Backus to guard and you are pretty close. Add another G/C and we can really focus on defense going forward.

The Lions are likely going to chose Stafford, I can't blame them for rolling the dice and taking a QB. This kid can turn around the franchise if the pick turns out right, the others only offer slight improvement which will lead nowhere.

Is Keyshawn Johnson still the #1 overall pick if you were to re-draft now, knowing what we know. Or would you take Ray Lewis in hindsight? You could make an argument for Ogden, Simeon Rice, or Marvin Harrison. But while most of the people in the First round are out of the NFL by now, Lewis is still leading his team and playing near the top of the game in 2009.

So all of you smart guys who say you can't take a lineman or defensive player first, do you by pass Ray Lewis to take the top rated QB of 1996, Tony Banks? Look at all of those players who played until 1999, 2002, 2004. Ray Lewis is still going strong. Can Aaron Curry be our Ray Lewis in 2009?

April 21st, 2009, 11:09 pm

Strawberries&Chocolat

National Champion

Joined: April 12th, 2005, 12:35 amPosts: 881Location: Boston, MA

columbuscrowd wrote:

And another archaic attitude: You can't draft a LB #1 or pay him that kind of money?

Why not?

Whoever you are going to draft, is going to get top money. That is the way it is. But who says your top money earner on your team HAS to be a QB?

Is Keyshawn Johnson still the #1 overall pick if you were to re-draft now, knowing what we know. Or would you take Ray Lewis in hindsight? You could make an argument for Ogden, Simeon Rice, or Marvin Harrison. But while most of the people in the First round are out of the NFL by now, Lewis is still leading his team and playing near the top of the game in 2009.

So all of you smart guys who say you can't take a lineman or defensive player first, do you by pass Ray Lewis to take the top rated QB of 1996, Tony Banks? Look at all of those players who played until 1999, 2002, 2004. Ray Lewis is still going strong. Can Aaron Curry be our Ray Lewis in 2009?

No, I wouldn't pass on Ray Lewis for Tony Banks, but there are a few other players I'd pass on Lewis for:

It's interesting that the '96 draft is brought up because Kevin Hardy was the can't miss LB that year that went #2 in the draft, well ahead of Ray Lewis. Not to say Curry will be Hardy but the chance he could be with the cap hit today would hurt just as much as missing on a QB. I personally don't want any of these guys this year at #1. Just remember there is no such thing as a safe pick that high in the draft and no sure things.

Since they have to draft at #1 my heart says draft Curry, my head says take the plunge on a potential franchise QB, but my gut says take the LT.

April 22nd, 2009, 7:10 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Pablo wrote:

I like Curry and would be very happy with that pick. I do, however, think you can get a very good LB with a later pick.

LT is a similar story. In fact, the top 4 are all very good and the drop off isn't dramatic after that.

I don't think that about the QB position, If you don't take one with the first pick you get a project at best. It is also the position you have to wait on most for the player to mature into the NFL the most, I'm tired of waiting - lets get that player on the roster and then build around him as he gets ready.

I might also catch flack here, but I'm not opposed to fixing the one side of the ball that we are not that far away from and that is the offense. I don't want to see CJ wasted. We have a RT hopefully. Get an LT, move Backus to guard and you are pretty close. Add another G/C and we can really focus on defense going forward.

The Lions are likely going to chose Stafford, I can't blame them for rolling the dice and taking a QB. This kid can turn around the franchise if the pick turns out right, the others only offer slight improvement which will lead nowhere.

With all due respect Pablo, ANY QB we take in this draft is going to be a project. Curry is not the (almost) consensus top overall player available because there are so many good LBs out there to be had. Maualuga is considered the second best, and he's being projected well outside the top 10.

I understand your reasoning. I truly do. But I think we would be far better off to allow Culpepper this year to show what he has without him knowing he's a lameduck player because Stafford or Sanchez are waiting in the wings. From all accounts, he has been outstanding in the lockerroom and on the practice field thus far. Getting Stafford doesn't fix the offense now. And you have said a QB won't be available at 20. I don't think one of the top four LTs will be there at 20 either. We can't take a QB and HOPE that a LT falls to us. The Lions reached last season and it backfired. Goz shouldn't have been a mid-first rounder, and we all found out why.

That being said, we know that Curry immediately upgrades at least part of our defense in both aspects, run stopping and pass coverage. He's also ready, I feel, to step in and be the outspoken leader of this defense, something nobody else has taken on. I think that type of personality would be of immense value.

I have heard all the arguments, I know all the reasonings, and I understand those folks who want to take Stafford. But, I just don't share the 'pick and hope' strategy that all of you do. I prefer the 'pick and grin' strategy, where you know you've just selected a player that the entire league would LOVE to have on their team.

Just my opinion....

April 22nd, 2009, 12:49 pm

kdsberman

League MVP

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pmPosts: 3527Location: Saginaw, MI

Curry!

Not drafting him would be stupid.

Not drafting him and drafting a quarterback is VERY stupid.

April 23rd, 2009, 11:14 am

jomo269

NFL Team Captain

Joined: January 27th, 2005, 9:12 pmPosts: 1610Location: Midland, MI

I've seen way too many reports today that say we have closed the deal with Stafford.

Repotedly for a total number of 80 mil with 40 mil guareented(sp?).

Sorry I can't give a link (just don't know how...too old).

Acouple of the sites where, ProSorts Daily and ESPN.

Now if you don't mind I will go jump pff the roof

It's ok it's about a 10 foot drop, it's the thought that counts.

April 23rd, 2009, 3:58 pm

njroar

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3229

Espn hasn't reported anything of the sort. The TV analysts all think its stafford, but they've been saying it for weeks. If they changed their tune now, they look stupid.

Prosports daily reported the same news yesterday that was denied yesterday about him signing a deal.

Nothing new has come out, other than people making assumptions based on the fact that there's a deal on the table. Will Condon actually settle for less than what Ryan made last year? He'd lose himself and potentially future clients if he didn't get an increase over last season, so I still believe the answer is no. IF a deal gets done and its for less than last year's #3, then it would have to be an economic problem across the league, but with all the big money free agency and restructured contract deals going on, I know that's not the issue.